C
If you want to disturb the car industry, you'd better have a few billion dollars: Mom-and-pop carmakers are unlikely to beat the biggest car companies. But in agriculture, small farmers can get the best of the major players. By connecting directly with customers, and by responding quickly to changes in the markets as well as in the ecosystems(生态系统）, small farmers can keep one step ahead of the big guys. As the co-founder of the National Young Farmers Coalition (NYFC, 美国青年农会）and a family farmer myself. I have a front-row seat to the innovations among small farmers that are transforming the industry.
For example, take the Quick Cut Greens Harvester, a tool developed just a couple of years ago by a young farmer, Jonathan Dysinger, in Tennessee, with a small loan from a local Slow Money group. It enables small-scale farmers to harvest 175 pounds of green vegetables per hour—a huge improvement over harvesting just a few dozen pounds by hand—suddenly making it possible for the little guys to compete with large farms of California. Before the tool came out, small farmers couldn't touch the price per pound offered by California farms. But now, with the combination of a better price point and a generally fresher product, they can stay in business.
The sustainable success of small farmers, though, won't happen without fundamental changes to the industry. One crucial factor is secure access to land. Competition from investors, developers, and established large farmers makes owning one's own land unattainable for many new farmers. From 2004 to 2013, agricultural land values doubled, and they continue to rise in many regions.
Another challenge for more than a million of the most qualified farm workers and managers is a non-existent path to citizenship — the greatest barrier to building a farm of their own. With farmers over the age of 65 outnumbering(多于）farmers younger than 35 by six to one, and with two-thirds of the nation's farmland in need of a new farmer, we must clear the path for talented people willing to grow the nation's food.
There are solutions that could light a path toward a more sustainable and fair farm economy, but farmers can't clumsily put them together before us. We at the NYFC need broad support as we urge Congress to increase farmland conservation, as we push for immigration reform, and as we seek policies that will ensure the success of a diverse and ambitious next generation of farms from all backgrounds. With a new farm bill to be debated in Congress, consumers must take a stand with young farmers.
A few years ago I had an “aha!” moment regarding handwriting.
I had in my hand a sheet of paper with handwritten instructions on it for some sort of editorial task. It occurred at first that I did not recognize the handwriting, and then I realized whose it must be. I finally became aware of the fact that I had been working with this colleague for at least a year, maybe two, and yet I did not recognize her handwriting at that point.
It was a very important event in the computerization of life-a sign that the informal. Friendly communication of people working together in an office had changed from notes in pen to instant messages and emails. There was a time when our workdays were filled with little letters, and we recognized one another's handwriting the way we knew voices or faces.
As a child visiting my father's office, I was pleased to recognize, in little notes on the desks of his staff, the same handwriting I would see at home in the notes he would leave on the fridge—except that those notes were signed “dad” instead of “RFW”.
All this has been on my mind because of the talk about The Rise and Fall of Handwriting, a book by Florey. She shows in her book a deep concern about the fall of handwriting and the failure of schools to teach children to write well, but many others argue that people in a digital age can't be expected to learn to hold a pen.
I don't buy it.
I don't want to see anyone cut off from the expressive, personal associations that a pen still promotes better than a digital keyboard does. For many a biographer, part of really getting to know their subjects is learning to read their handwriting.
What some people advocate is teaching one of the many attractive handwritings based on the handwriting of 16th-century Italy. That may sound impossibly grand-as if they want kids to learn to draw by copying classical paintings. However, they have worked in many school systems.
Every day I see advertisements in the newspapers and on the buses claiming that it is easy and quick to learn English. There is even a reference to William Shakespeare or Charles Dickens to encourage learners even more. When I see advertisements like this, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. But many people must believe these ridiculous claims, or else the advertisements would not appear.
Of course it is clear that students who go to England to learn English have a great advantage over others, but too many cannot afford to do so. Some go to the opposite extreme and think they can teach themselves at home with dictionaries. But it is wrong to assume that each word in English has a precise equivalent in another language, let alone produces good pronunciation and intonation.
Most teaching is still based on behaviorist psychology. Behaviorists are fond of making students repeat phrases and making sentences. If we were parrots or chimpanzees, these methods might be successful. A large number of theorists seem to think it is a pity we aren't, because it would make it easier to use their methods.
In my personal opinion, no one can ever learn to speak English or any other language unless he is interested in it. Human beings, unlike parrots and chimpanzees, do not like making noises unless they understand what the noises mean and can relate them to their own lives. It is worth remembering that language is a means of communication. What they listen to and read cannot be a formula. It must be real.
There is another relevant point worth mentioning here. We need other people to talk to and listen to when we communicate. They can work with us and practice the unfamiliar forms with us in real situations, talking to each other about real life language.
Ever wondered whether punishment actually makes people cooperate (合作)? A team of scientists created an experiment to figure it out and the results were pretty unexpected.
To understand what they found, you have to know why these scientists were studying punishment. They were trying to figure out why people cooperate when it's often so easy to profit at others expense. Why don't friends steal from each other? Why do parents bother to feed their children? If the answer to these questions is obvious to you, congratulations, you are ahead of scientists. They're still trying to figure it out.
In this experiment, researchers had 225 Chinese students play a game, where if the students cooperated, they'd all get a number of points. But if one defected (变节) and everyone else cooperated, the defector would get a lot of points, and the cooperators would lose out. This game represents a lot of real life situations where you struggle with a decision: work together and do OK, or run off with the rewards, ruining everybody else's day.
This is actually a pretty ordinary economic experiment. But the researchers added two changes to see if they could mimic(糢拟)the real world better. Change one: some students played many rounds together, so they'd learn who they could trust. Change two: people could punish each other, sacrificing a point or two to destroy another player's score.
In the end, the researchers found that playing multiple rounds made people cooperate more, which definitely mimics human society. But the whole punishment thing led to a surprise: punishing didn't actually make people cooperate more. In fact, it made them cooperate less.
So the scientists still don't know why people cooperate, though it looks like it has more to do with groups sticking together than it does with punishment.
So many of us hold on to little resentments that may have come from an argument, a misunderstanding, or some other painful event. Stubbornly, we wait for someone else to reach out to us—believing this is the only way we can forgive or rekindle a friendship or family relationship.
An acquaintance of mine, whose health isn't very good, recently told me that she hadn't spoken to her son in almost three years. She said that she and her son had had a disagreement about his wife and that she wouldn't speak to him again unless he called first. When I suggested that she be the one to reach out, she resisted initially and said, "I can't do that. He's the one who should apologize." She was literally willing to die before reaching out to her only son. After a little gentle encouragement, however, she did decide to be the first one to reach out. To her amazement, her son was grateful for her willingness to call and offered an apology of his own. As is usually the case when someone takes the chance and reaches out, everyone wins.
Whenever we hold on to our anger, we turn "small stuff" into really "big stuff" in our minds. We start to believe that our positions are more important than our happiness. They are not. If you want to be a more peaceful person you must understand that being right is almost never more important than allowing yourself to be happy. The way to be happy is to let go, and reach out. Let other people be right. This doesn't mean that you're wrong. Everything will be fine. You'll experience the peace of letting go, as well as the joy of letting others be right.
You'll also notice that, as you reach out and let others be "right," they will become less defensive and more loving toward you. They might even reach back. But if for some reason they don't, that's okay too. You'll have the inner satisfaction of knowing that you have done your part to create a more loving world, and certainly you'll be more peaceful yourself.
You're out to dinner. The food is delicious and the service is fine. You decide to leave a big fat tip. Why? The answer may not be as simple as you think.
Tipping, psychologists have found, is not just about service. Instead, studies have shown that tipping can be affected by psychological reactions to a series of different factors from the waiter's choice of words, to how they carry themselves while taking orders, to the bill's total. Even how much waiters remind customers of themselves can determine how much change they pocket by the end of the night.
“Studies before have shown that mimicry(模仿) brings into positive feelings for the mimicker,” wrote Rick van Baaren, a social psychology professor. “These studies show that people who are being mimicked become more generous toward the person who mimics them.”
So Rick van Baaren divided 59 waiters into two groups. He requested that half serve with a phrase such as. “ Coming up !” Those in the other hall were instructed to repeat the orders and preferences back to the customers. Rick van Baaren then compared their take-home pay. 'The results were clear—it pays to mimic your customer. The copycat(模仿者) waiters earned almost double the amount of tips to the other group.
Leonard Green and Joel Myerson, psychologists at Washington University in St. Louis, found the generosity of a tipper maybe limited by his bill. After research on the 1,000 tips left for waiters, cabdrivers, hair stylists, they found tip percentages in these three areas dropped as customers' bills went up. In fact, tip percentages appear to plateau(稳定期) when bills topped $100 and a bill for $200 made the worker gain no bigger percentage tip than a bill for $100.
“That's also a point of tipping,” Green says. “You have to give a little extra to the cabdriver for being there to pick you up and something to the waiter for being there to serve you. If they weren't there, you'd never get any service. So part of the idea of a tip is for just being there.”
Here is a record of the discussion about AI (artificial intelligence) conducted by several scientists:
Scientist A: I would say that we are quite a long way off developing the AI, though I do think it will happen within the next thirty or forty years. We will probably remain in control of technology and it will help us solve many of the world's problems. However, no one really knows what will happen if machines become more intelligent than humans. They may help us, ignore us or destroy us. I tend to believe AI will have a positive influence on our future lives, but whether that is true will be partly up to us.
Scientist B: I have to admit that the potential consequences of creating something that can match or go beyond human intelligence frighten me. Even now, scientists are teaching computers how to learn on their own. At some point in the near future, their intelligence may well take off and develop at an ever-increasing speed. Human beings evolve biologically very slowly and we would be quickly substituted. In the short term, there is the danger that robots will take over millions of human jobs, creating a large underclass of unemployed people. This could mean large-scale poverty and social unrest. In the long term machines might decide the world would be better without humans.
Scientist C: I'm a member of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. Forget the movie image of a terrifying Terminator stamping on human skulls and think of what's happening right now: military machines like drones, gun turrets and sentry robots are already being used to kill with very little human input. The next step will be autonomous “murderbots” following orders but finally deciding who to kill on their own. It seems clear to me that this would be extremely dangerous for humans. We need to be very cautious indeed about what we ask machines to do.
Competition occurs naturally between living beings which co-exist in the same environment. In modern society there is a great deal of argument about competition. Some value it highly, believing that it is responsible for social progress and prosperity(繁荣). Others say that competition is bad ;that it sets one person against another ;that it leads to unfriendly relationship between people.
I have taught many children who held the belief that their self worth relied on how well they performed at tennis and other skills. For them playing well and winning are often life and death affairs. In their single minded pursuit(追求)of success, the development of many other human qualities is sadly forgotten.
However, while some seem to be lost in the desire to succeed, others take an opposite attitude. In a culture which values only the winner and pays no attention to the ordinary players, they strongly blame competition. Among the most vocal are youngsters who have suffered under competitive pressures from their parents or society.
Teaching these young people, I often observe in them a desire to fail. They seem to seek failure by not trying to win or achieve success. By not trying, they always have an excuse :”I may have lost, but it doesn't matter because I really didn't try.” What is not usually admitted by themselves is the belief that if they had really tried and lost, that would mean a lot. Such a loss would be a measure of their worth. Clearly, this belief is the same as that of the true competitors who try to prove them-selves. Both are based on the mistaken belief that one's self respect relies on how well one performs in comparison with others. Both are afraid of not being valued. Only as this basic and often troublesome fear begins to dissolve (缓解) can we discover a new meaning in competition.
We want our children to succeed, in school and, perhaps even more importantly, in life. But the paradox(悖论) is that our children can only truly succeed if they first learn how to fail. Consider the finding that world-class figure skaters fall over more often in practice than low-level figure skaters. At first sight this seems contradictory. Why are the really good skaters falling over the most?
The reason is actually quite simple. Top skaters are constantly challenging themselves in practice, attempting jumps that stretch their limitations. This is why they fall over so often, but it is precisely why they learn so fast. Lower-level skaters have a quite different approach. They are always attempting jumps they can already do very easily, remaining within their comfort zone. This is why they don't fall over. In a superficial sense, they look successful, because they are always on their feet. The truth, however, is that by never failing, they never progress.
What is true of skating is also true of life. James Dyson worked through 5,126 failed prototypes(原型) for his dual cyclone vacuum before coining up with the design that made his fortune. These failures were essential to the pathway of learning. As Dyson put it: “You can't develop new technology unless you test new ideas and learn when things go wrong. Failure is essential to invention.”
In healthcare, however, things are very different. Clinicians don't like to admit to failure, partly because they have healthy egos(自我)(particularly the senior doctors) and partly because they fear litigation(诉讼). The consequence is that instead of learning from failure, healthcare often covers up failure. The direct consequence is that the same mistakes are repeated. According to the Journal of Patient Safety, 400,000 people die every year in American hospitals alone due to preventable error. Until healthcare learns to respond positively to failure, things will not improve.
But let us return to children. One of the major mistakes in education in the 1970s was the attempt to equip children with confidence by giving them lots of successes （setting the bar very low）. The consequence was that the ego of kids became bound up with success, and they became unable to take risks and collapsed as soon as they hit a proper challenge.
We need to flip(翻转) this approach. In a complex world, failure is inevitable. It is those individuals and institutions that have the flexibility to face up to failure, learn the lessons and adapt which eventually excel(突出).
B . 
C . 
D . 
Kids seem to spend endless hours on smartphones, computers and tablets these days. The best thing parents can do to prevent it is to encourage youngsters to spend more time outdoors in the sunlight.
There has been a massive rise around the globe in short-sightedness—or myopia as it's officially known—over recent decades. Myopia or short-sightedness is becoming more common. Lack of natural light seems to be the key issue. “The main factor seems to be a lack of exposure to direct sunlight, because children who study a lot and who use computers or smartphones or tablet computers a lot have less opportunity to run around outside and are less exposed to sunshine and because of that children seem to be at more risk of developing shortsightedness.”
Professor Hammond says, “It may be there's no coincidence that in East Asian countries, the most myopic ones all relate may to be the that maths league tables(排名表). These kids are being pushed with very intensive education from a very young age and spend a lot of time indoors studying close up. Therefore the concern is that all close work—like playing with the iPhone—carries the potential that it could make them more shortsighted.”
The best thing to do, say the experts, is to get children playing outside as much as possible. “In a perfect world, probably on average across the week and the weekend, two hours a day outdoors is protective of becoming short-sighted in children. Healthy diet is really also important—in terms of getting oily fish, green vegetables, green leafy vegetables as much as possible.
“What we need to look at is ways of modifying the impact that these activities have on their visual development.” Professor Hammond said, “There are eye drops and other treatments to slow myopia progression. But in terms of preventing myopia itself, there isn't any data out there at the moment in terms of the question, 'Could the drops we use slow progression or stop myopia developing at all? ' ”
In America, parents tend to encourage their children to develop their potential (潜能) to the fullest extent. Fathers and mothers frequently teach their children both ambition and the confidence necessary to work toward their goals. American parents are always active in concentrating on what their kids can do, not what they can't. As a result, millions of American boys and girls grow up hoping to become actors and athletes, diplomats and doctors. Many of them even want to become president.
American parents often encourage their children to become involved in extra activities of all types at school, such as student government, sports and music. They believe that only through taking part in these activities can their children become mature young adults.
As we all know, school work is important. But parents should realize that the social skills their children learn from natural conversations with each other are as important as schoolwork and the skills they will need in the future work. What's more important in their work is that their children should have a sound knowledge of physics or the ability to communicate effectively.
As a rule, Chinese parents don't educate their children about the same kind of ambition and confidence as Americans do, nor do they encourage the same level of participation in extra activities. Children are typically advised to study hard and pass exams. They have to spend a lot of time in doing much schoolwork every day. It is a great waste of time to do so.
Now more and more Chinese parents have recognized that they should pay attention to developing the potential of their children. I hope that leaders in Chinese educational circles should take some measures to develop the potential of their children. I am very confident about it.
Many people want to grow their own garden, but they simply do not have the room. Do not worry. There is a solution. Consider container gardening.
The great thing about container gardening is that you can use a variety of different containers. You simply have to use your imagination. You could create a beautiful garden with things such as cement blocks, hanging baskets, clay pots, or window boxes. There are so many options when it comes to container gardening; it is only limited by your imagination.
Of course, you will want to take the following into consideration when you are ready to begin container gardening, in order for it to be successful.
First, you should avoid any containers that have been used to store chemicals, as well as treated wood. This could lead to the sudden death of your flowers and lead to the failure of your container gardening.
With any container that you choose, you need to ensure that it allows the water in it to drain when necessary. So it may be essential for you to create holes in the container to help this along. You should also make sure the containers are placed on a raised surface, not upon the floor, to ensure the best possible drainage.
Ensure that the containers you choose are appropriate in size for the plants you choose. You need to prevent the roots from overgrowing the container.
If you like fresh veggies, you could consider container gardening with vegetables. This requires a process that differs from that of flower gardening. Talk to an employee at a supply store in your area. They can help you choose the right containers for the vegetables you are wishing to grow.
How much television do you watch? Did you really give an honest answer? A recent study shows that people aren't totally truthful about their television-watching habits.
The study in question was conducted at Ball State University in the US. Researchers there wanted to find out how much television people view according to their age. The study was paid for by a council associated with the Nielsen Company, which determines television ratings. The conclusions were that people spend more than 8 hours a day looking at a screen. This included cell phones and computers，but the majority were television screens.
There are three interesting things about this study. The first is that people are exposed to more than one hour of advertisements per day. The second is that even with access to DVDs and internet videos, television is still the most popular media source. The third is that the amount of screen-watching people do is relatively the same from the ages of 18-65.
So, if everyone is watching television, why lie about it? Well, if someone admits they watch television for five or six hours, they could be considered a couch potato. Michael Phillips, one of the study's main researchers, says, “There's a social stigma for people who watch too much television. Sometimes, however, watching the latest reality show or the funniest sitcom gives co-workers and friends fun things to talk about.”
Even if you do watch a lot of television, perhaps we can use this study as a reason to be honest with ourselves about how much time we spend in front of the television. I mean, after all, everyone else is doing it...
The organic food has gained a lot of [popularity as they are being considered as healthier and tastier. A fair number of people advocate a large-scale shift to organic farming from conventional agriculture. But this might not seem well-founded.
Since the mid-19th century, conventional industrial agriculture has become incredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis. Conventional farming gets more and more crop per square foot of land, which can mean less wilderness needs to be transformed to farmland.
To make farming more efficient, conventional agriculture uses a significant amount of synthetic fertilizer（合成肥料）each year, and all that nitrogen（氮）enables much faster plant growth. However, the cost is paid in vast polluted dead zones at the months of many of the world's rivers, because much of the nitrogen ends up running off the soil and into the oceans. This also makes conventional farming one of the major threats to the environment.
To weaken the environmental impact of agriculture, improve soil quality as well as produce healthier foods, some farmers have turned to organic farming. Environmentalists have also welcomed organic food as better for the planet than the food produced by agricultural corporations. Organic practices — refusing artificial fertilizers and chemical pesticides –are considered far more sustainable. Sales of organic food rose 7.7% in 2010, up to $26.7 billion—and people are making those purchases for their moral senses as much as their tongues.
Yet a new meta-analysis in Nature does the math and comes to a hard conclusion: organic farming produces 25% fewer crops on average than conventional agriculture.
In the Nature analysis, scientists performed an analysis of 66 studies comparing conventional and organic methods across 34 different crop species, from fruits to grains. They found that organic farming delivered a lower output for every crop type, though the difference varied widely. For crops like fruit trees, organic trailed（落后于）conventional agriculture by just 5%. Yet for major grain crops and vegetables – all of which provide the world's main calories – conventional agriculture outperformed organics by more than 25%.
What that means is that while organic farming may be more sustainable than conventional agriculture, there are trade-offs（此消彼长）with each. So an ideal global agriculture system may borrow the best from both systems rather than upholding merely organic or conventional practices.
CP: Central Point P: Point Sp: Sub-point（次要点） C: Conclusion
B . 
C . 
D . 
When we think of a generation gap we usually think of conflicting tastes in music, or pastimes. But now the generation gap is handwriting. After one teacher in Tennessee discovered that she had students who couldn't read the assignments she was writing on the board, she posted it on the Internet saying handwriting should be taught in schools.
Opponents claim that handwriting has become out of time in our modern world. Typed words have become a primary form of communication. Once a practical kill handwriting is no longer used by the vast majority of Americans. It is no longer taught in schools, and some claim that the time that it would take to teach it could be put to better use, for instance, by teaching the technical skills.
But even in today's world there are still plenty of reasons to pick up a pen and apply it to paper. Many American institutions still require original signatures, for instance, signing for a registered letter and buying a house. And original signatures are much more difficult to forge(伪造) than their digital counterparts. There is also strong evidence that writing by hand is good for the mind. It activates a different part of the brain, and improves fine moving skills in young children. People also tend to remember what they write by hand more than what they type, and the process of writing by hand has been shown to stimulate ideas. Besides, studies have shown that kids who write by hand learn to read and spell earlier than those who don't. Not to mention, handwriting is pleasing, as is evidenced by the fact that no one has ever typed a love letter. And handwriting remains popular as an art form.
Yes, we live in a modern world, but we live in a modern world that is based on fundamental values.
Ownership used to be about as straightforward as writing a cheque. If you bought something, you owned it. If it broke, you fixed it. If you no longer wanted it, you sold it or threw it away. In the digital age, however, ownership has become more slippery. Since the coming of smartphones, consumers have been forced to accept that they do not control the software in their devices; they are only licensed to use it. As a digital chain is wrapped ever more tightly around more devices, such as cars and thermostats, who owns and who controls which objects is becoming a problem. Buyers should be aware that some of their most basic property rights are under threat.
The trend is not always harmful. Manufacturers seeking to restrict what owners do with increasingly complex technology have good reasons to protect their copyright, ensure that their machines do not break down, support environmental standards and prevent hacking. Sometimes companies use their control over a product's software for the owners' benefit. When Hurricane Irma hit Florida this month, Tesla remotely updated the software controlling the batteries of some models to give owners more range to escape the storm.
But the more digital strings are attached to goods, the more the balance of control leans towards producers and away from owners. That can be inconvenient. Picking a car is hard enough, but harder still if you have to dig up the instructions that tell you how use is limited and what data you must give. If the products are intentionally designed not to last long, it can also be expensive. Already, items from smartphones to washing machines have become extremely hard to fix, meaning that they are thrown away instead of being repaired.
Privacy is also at risk. Users become terrified when iRobot, a robotic vacuum cleaner, not only cleans the floor but also creates a digital map of the inside of a home that can then be sold to advertisers (though the manufacturer says it has no intention of doing so). Cases like this should remind people how jealously they ought to protect their property rights and control who uses the data that is collected.
Ownership is not about to go away, but its meaning is changing. This requires careful inspection. Devices, by and large, are sold on the basis that they enable people to do what they want. To the extent they are controlled by somebody else, that freedom is compromised.
I: Introduction P: Point Sp: Sub-point (次要点) C: Conclusion
B . 
C . 
D . 
Money is the root of all evil (邪恶) and new study claims there may be some truth behind the saying. Scientists at the University of California Berkeley, US, announced on February 27 that rich people are more likely to do immoral things, such as lie or cheat, than poorer people. The scientists did a series of eight experiments. They published their findings online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNA《美国国家科学院院刊》).
They carried out the first two experiments from the sidewalk near Berkeley. They noted that drivers of newer and more expensive cars were more likely to cut off other cars and pedestrians at crosswalks. Nearly 45 percent of people driving expensive ears ignored a pedestrian compared with only 30 percent of people driving mow modest cars.
In another experiment, a group of college students was asked if they would do immoral things in various everyday situations. Examples included taking printer paper from work and not telling a salesperson when he or she gave back more change. Students from higher — class families were more likely to act dishonestly.
According to the scientists, rich people often think money can get them out of trouble. This makes them less afraid to take risks. It also means they care less about other people's feelings.
Finally, it just makes them greedier. “Higher wealth status seems to make you want even more, and that increased want leads you to bend the rules or break the rules to serve your self- interest,” said Paul Piff, lead scientist of the study.
Piff pointed out that the findings don't mean that all rich people are untrustworthy or all poor people honest. He said the experiments were to show how people living in different social situations express their instincts（本能）and values in different ways.
When your child lies to you, it hurts. As parents, it makes us angry and we take it personally. We feel like we can never trust our child again. Why does lying cause such anger, pain and worry for parents?
Parents are understandably very afraid of their children getting hurt and getting into trouble, but they have very little protection against these things as they send their kids out into the word. Kids learn from other kids and from external media, and this makes parents feel unsafe because they can't control the information and ideas that their children are exposed to.
When your kid lies, you start to see him as “sneaky（卑鄙的）”, especially if he continues to lie to you. You feel that he's going behind your back. You begin to think that your kids are “bad”. Because, certainly, if lying is bad, liars are bad. It's just that simple. Parents need to make their kids responsible for lying. But the mistake parents make is that they start to blame the kid for lying. It's considered immoral to lie. But when you look at your kid like he's a sneak, it's a slippery slope （滑坡谬误）that starts with “You lie” and ends up at “You're a bad person”.
Kids know lying is forbidden. But they don't see it as hurtful. So a kid will say, “I know it's wrong that l eat a sugar snack when I'm not supposed to. But who does it hurt?” “I know it's wrong that I trade my dried fruit for a Twinkie. But it doesn't really hurt anybody. I can handle it. What's the big deal?” That's what the kid sees.
So I think that parents have to assume that kids are going to tell them lies, because they're immature and they don't understand how hurtful these things are. They're all drawn to excitement, and they'll all have a tendency to distort（歪曲）the truth because they're kids.
“Years ago when I was at the Grand Canyon, I remembered someone coming up to the canyon's edge, taking a shot with a camera and then walking away, like 'got it – done', barely even glancing at the magnificent scene in front of him,” Linda Henkel, a scientist at Fairfield University, US told Live Science.
Henkel was surprised by how obsessed (痴迷的) people are with taking pictures these days - before dinner, during friends' birthday parties, on museum tours and so on.
They keep taking pictures because they think that it helps record the moment, but as Henkel's latest study has just found out, this obsession may prevent their brains remembering what actually happened, reported The Guardian.
In her study, Henkel led a group of college students around a museum and asked them to simply observe 15 objects and photograph 15 others. The next day the students' memory of the tour was tested, and the results showed that they were less accurate in recognizing the objects and they remembered fewer details about them if they photographed them.
''When people rely on technology to remember them — counting on the camera to record the event and thus not needing to attend to it fully themselves, it can have a negative impact on how well they remember their experiences,” Henkel explained.
But there is also an exception: if students zoomed in to photograph part of an object, their memory actually improved, and those who focused the lens (镜头) on a specific area could even recall parts that weren't in the frame.
So basically, this study is saying that constantly taking pictures can harm your memory. But shouldn't reviewing pictures we have taken help wake up our memories? This is true, but only if we spend enough time doing it.
“In order to remember, we have to access and interact with the photos, rather than just collect them,” Henkel told The Telegraph. However, previous research has shown that most people never take the time to look over their digital pictures simply because there are too many of them and they aren't usually very organized on their computers.
That robots, automation, and software can replace people might seem obvious to anyone who's worked in automotive manufacturing. But MIT business scholars Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee's claim is more troubling and controversial. They believe that rapid technological change has been destroying jobs faster than it is creating them.
They believe that technology increases productivity and makes societies wealthier, but it became clear to them that the same technologies making many jobs safer, easier, and more productive were also reducing the demand for many types of human workers. Technologies like the Web, artificial intelligence, and big data are automating many routine tasks. Countless traditional white-collar jobs, such as many in the post office and in customer service, have disappeared.
As evidence, Brynjolfsson and McAfee point to a chart on which separate lines represent productivity and total employment in the United States. For years after World War II, the two lines closely tracked each other, with increases in jobs corresponding to increases in productivity. Then, beginning in 2000, the lines diverge; productivity continues to rise steadily, but employment suddenly shrinks. By 2011, a significant gap appears between the two lines, showing economic growth with no parallel increase in job creation.
United States Productivity and Employment
But are these new technologies really responsible for a decade of lackluster (无生气) job growth? David Autor, an economist at MIT who has studied the connections between jobs and technology, doubts that technology could account for such a sudden change in total employment. Moreover, he also doubts that productivity has, in fact, risen steadily in the United States in the past decade. If he's right, it raises the possibility that poor job growth could be simply a result of a depressed economy. The sudden slowdown in job creation “is a big puzzle,” he says, “but there's not a lot of evidence that it's linked to computers.” “To be sure, computer technologies are changing the types of jobs available, but that is very different from saying technology is affecting the total number of jobs,” he adds. “Jobs can change a lot without there being huge changes in employment rates.”
Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist, says that while technological changes can be painful for workers whose skills no longer match the needs of employers, no historical pattern shows these shifts leading to a net decrease in jobs over an extended period. Still, Katz doesn't dismiss the notion that there is something different about today's digital technologies. Though he expects the historical pattern to hold, it is “genuinely a question,” he says. “If technology disrupts enough, who knows what will happen?”
Science is finally beginning to embrace animals who were, for a long time, considered second-class citizens.
As Annie Potts of Canterbury University has noted, chickens distinguish among one hundred chicken faces and recognize familiar individuals even after months of separation. When given problems to solve, they reason: hens trained to pick colored buttons sometimes choose to give up an immediate food reward for a slightly later (and better) one. Healthy hens may aid friends, and mourn when those friend die.
Pigs respond meaningful to human symbols. When a research team led by Candace Croney at Penn State University carried wooden blocks marked with X and O symbols around pigs, only the O carriers offered food to the animals. The pigs soon ignored the X carriers in favor of the O's. Then the team switched from real-life objects to T-shirts printed with X or O symbols. Still, the pigs walked only toward the O-shirted people: they had transferred their knowledge to a two-dimensional format, a not inconsiderable feat of reasoning.
I've been guilty of prejudiced expectations, myself. At the start of my career almost four decades ago, I was firmly convinced that monkeys and apes out-think and out-feel other animals. They're other primates(灵长目动物), after all, animals from our own mammalian(灵长目动物) class. Fairly soon, I came to see that along with our closest living relatives, whales too are masters of cultural learning, and elephants express profound joy and mourning with their social companions. Long-term studies in the wild on these mammals helped to fuel a viewpoint shift in our society: the public no longer so easily accepts monkeys made to undergo painful procedure in laboratories, elephants forced to perform in circuses, and dolphins kept in small tanks at theme parks.
Over time, though, as I began to broaden out even further and explore the inner lives of fish, chickens, pigs, goats, and cows, 1 started to wonder: Will the new science of "food animals" bring an ethical (伦理的) revolution in terms of who we eat? In other words, will our ethics start to catch up with the development of our science?
Animal activists are already there, of course, committed to not eating these animals. But what about the rest of us? Can paying attention to the thinking and feeling of these animals lead us to make changes in who we eat?
D
Children as young as ten are becoming dependent on social media for their sense of self-worth, a major study warned.
It found many youngsters(少年）now measure their status by how much public approval they get online, often through "like". Some change their behavior in real life to improve their image on the web.
The report into youngsters aged from 8 to 12 was carried out by Children's Commissioner (专员）Anne Longfield. She said social media firms were exposing children to major emotional risks, with some youngsters starting secondary school ill-equipped to cope with the tremendous pressure they faced online.
Some social apps were popular among the children even though they supposedly require users to be at least 13.The youngsters admitted planning trips around potential photo-opportunities and then messaging friends—and friends of friends — to demand "likes" for their online posts.
The report found that youngsters felt their friendships could be at risk if they did not respond to social media posts quickly, and around the clock.
Children aged 8 to 10 were "starting to feel happy" when others liked their posts. However, those in the 10 to 12 age group were "concerned with how many people like their posts", suggesting a "need" for social recognition that gets stronger the older they become.
Miss Longfield warned that a generation of children risked growing up "worried about their appearance and image as a result of the unrealistic lifestyles they follow on platforms, and increasingly anxious about switching off due to the constant demands of social media.
She said: "Children are using social media with family and friends and to play games when they are in primary school. But what starts as fun usage of apps turns into tremendous pressure in real social media interaction at secondary school."
As their world expanded, she said, children compared themselves to others online in a way that was "hugely damaging in terms of their self-identity, in terms of their confidence, but also in terms of their ability to develop themselves".
Miss Longfield added: "Then there is this push to connect—if you go offline, will you miss something, will you miss out, will you show that you don't care about those people you are following, all of those come together in a huge way at once."
"For children it is very, very difficult to cope with emotionally." The Children's Commissioner for England's study—life in Likes—found that children as young as 8 were using social media platforms largely for play.
However, the research—involving eight groups of 32 children aged 8 to 12—suggested that as they headed toward their teens, they became increasingly anxious online.
By the time they started secondary school—at age 11—children were already far more aware of their image online and felt under huge pressure to ensure their posts were popular, the report found.
However, they still did not know how to cope with mean-spirited jokes, or the sense of incompetence they might feel if they compared themselves to celebrities(名人）or more brilliant friends online. The report said they also faced pressure to respond to messages at all hours of the day—especially at secondary school when more youngsters have mobile phones.
The Children's Commissioner said schools and parents must now do more to prepare children for the emotional minefield(雷区）they faced online. And she said social media companies must also "take more responsibility". They should either monitor their websites better so that children do not sign up too early, or they should adjust their websites to the needs of younger users.
Javed Khan, of children's charity Bamardo's, said: "It's vital that new compulsory age-appropriate relationship and sex education lessons in England should help equip children to deal with the growing demands of social media.
"It's also hugely important for parents to know which apps their children are using."
D
Preparing Cities for Robot Cars
The possibility of self-driving robot cars has often seemed like a futurist's dream, years away from materializing in the real world. Well, the future is apparently now. The California Department of Motor Vehicles began giving permits in April for companies to test truly self-driving cars on public roads. The state also cleared the way for companies to sell or rent out self-driving cars, and for companies to operate driverless taxi services. California, it should be noted, isn't leading the way here. Companies have been testing their vehicles in cities across the country. It's hard to predict when driverless cars will be everywhere on our roads. But however long it takes, the technology has the potential to change our transportation systems and our cities, for better or for worse, depending on how the transformation is regulated.
While much of the debate so far has been focused on the safety of driverless cars(and rightfully so), policymakers also should be talking about how self-driving vehicles can help reduce traffic jams, cut emissions(排放) and offer more convenient, affordable mobility options. The arrival of driverless vehicles is a chance to make sure that those vehicles are environmentally friendly and more shared.
Do we want to copy — or even worsen — the traffic of today with driverless cars? Imagine a future where most adults own individual self-driving vehicles. They tolerate long, slow journeys to and from work on packed highways because they can work, entertain themselves or sleep on the ride, which encourages urban spread. They take their driverless car to an appointment and set the empty vehicle to circle the building to avoid paying for parking. Instead of walking a few blocks to pick up a child or the dry cleaning, they send the self-driving minibus. The convenience even leads fewer people to take public transport — an unwelcome side effect researchers have already found in ride-hailing(叫车) services.
A study from the University of California at Davis suggested that replacing petrol-powered private cars worldwide with electric, self-driving and shared systems could reduce carbon emissions from transportation 80% and cut the cost of transportation infrastructure(基础设施) and operations 40% by 2050. Fewer emissions and cheaper travel sound pretty appealing. The first commercially available driverless cars will almost certainly be fielded by ride-hailing services, considering the cost of self-driving technology as well as liability and maintenance issues(责任与维护问题). But driverless car ownership could increase as the prices drop and more people become comfortable with the technology.
Policymakers should start thinking now about how to make sure the appearance of driverless vehicles doesn't extend the worst aspects of the car-controlled transportation system we have today. The coming technological advancement presents a chance for cities and states to develop transportation systems designed to move more people, and more affordably. The car of the future is coming. We just have to plan for it.
C
As cultural symbols go, the American car is quite young. The Model T Ford was built at the Piquette Plant in Michigan a century ago, with the first rolling off the assembly line（装配线） on September 27, 1908. Only eleven cars were produced the next month. But eventually Henry Ford would build fifteen million of them.
Modern America was born on the road, behind a wheel. The car shaped some of the most lasting aspects of American culture: the roadside diner, the billboard, the motel, even the hamburger. For most of the last century, the car represented what it meant to be American—going forward at high speed to find new worlds. The road novel, the road movie, these are the most typical American ideas, born of abundant petrol, cheap cars and a never-ending interstate highway system, the largest public works project in history.
In 1928 Herbert Hoover imagined an America with "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage." Since then, this society has moved onward, never looking back, as the car transformed America from a farm-based society into an industrial power.
The cars that drove the American Dream have helped to create a global ecological disaster. In America the demand for oil has grown by 22 percent since 1990.
The problems of excessive（过度的）energy consumption, climate change and population growth have been described in a book by the American writer Thomas L. Friedman. He fears the worst, but hopes for the best.
Friedman points out that the green economy（经济）is a chance to keep American strength. "The ability to design, build and export green technologies for producing clean water, clean air and healthy and abundant food is going to be the currency of power in the new century."
B
Steven Stein likes to follow garbage trucks. His strange habit makes sense when you consider that he's an environmental scientist who studies how to reduce litter, including things that fall off garbage trucks as they drive down the road. What is even more interesting is that one of Stein's jobs is defending an industry behind the plastic shopping bags.
Americans use more than 100 billion thin film plastic bags every year. So many end up in tree branches or along highways that a growing number of cities do not allow them at checkouts(收银台). The bags are prohibited in some 90 cities in California, including Los Angeles. Eyeing these headwinds, plastic-bag makers are hiring scientists like Stein to make the case that their products are not as bad for the planet as most people assume.
Among the bag makers' arguments: many cities with bans still allow shoppers to purchase paper bags, which are easily recycled but require more energy to produce and transport. And while plastic bags may be ugly to look at, they represent a small percentage of all garbage on the ground today.
The industry has also taken aim at the product that has appeared as its replacement: reusable shopping bags. The stronger a reusable bag is, the longer its life and the more plastic-bag use it cancels out. However, longer-lasting reusable bags often require more energy to make. One study found that a cotton bag must be used at least 131 times to be better for the planet than plastic.
Environmentalists don't dispute（质疑） these points. They hope paper bags will be banned someday too and want shoppers to use the same reusable bags for years.
D
We've all been there: in a lift, in line at the bank or on airplane, surrounded by people who are, like us, deeply focused on their smartphones or, worse, struggling with the uncomfortable silence.
What's the problem? It's possible that we all have compromised conversational intelligence. It's more likely that none of us start a conversation because it's awkward and challenging, or we think it's annoying and unnecessary. But the next time you find yourself among strangers, consider that small talk is worth the trouble. Experts say it's an invaluable social practice that results in big benefits.
Dismissing small talk as unimportant is easy, but we can't forget that deep relationships wouldn't even exist if it weren't for casual conversation. Small talk is the grease (润滑剂) for social communication, says Bernardo Carducci, director of the Shyness Research Institute at Indiana University Southeast. "Almost every great love story and each big business deal begins with small talk," he explains. "The key to successful small talk is learning how to connect with others, not just communicate with them."
In a 2014 study, Elizabeth Dunn, associate professor of psychology at UBC, invited people on their way into a coffee shop. One group was asked to seek out an interaction(互动) with its waiter; the other, to speak only when necessary. The results showed that those who chatted with their server reported significantly higher positive feelings and a better coffee shop experience. "It's not that talking to the waiter is better than talking to your husband," says Dunn. "But interactions with peripheral(边缘的) members of our social network matter for our well-being also."
Dunn believes that people who reach out to strangers feel a significantly greater sense of belonging, a bond with others. Carducci believes developing such a sense of belonging starts with small talk. "Small talk is the basis of good manners," he says.
A new commodity brings about a highly profitable, fast-growing industry, urging antitrust（反垄断）regulators to step in to check those who control its flow. A century ago ,the resource in question was oil. Now similar concerns are being raised by the giants（巨头）that deal in data, the oil of the digital age. The most valuable firms are Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft. All look unstoppable.
Such situations have led to calls for the tech giants to be broken up. But size alone is not a crime, The giants' success has benefited consumers. Few want to live without search engines or a quick delivery, Far from charging consumers high prices, many of these services are free (users pay, in effect, by handing over yet more data). And the appearance of new-born giants suggests that newcomers can make waves, too.
But there is cause for concern. The internet has made data abundant, all-present and far more valuable, changing the nature of data and competition. Google initially used the data collected from users to target advertising better. But recently it has discovered that data can be turned into new services: translation and visual recognition, to be sold to other companies. Internet companies' control of data gives them enormous power. So they have a “God's eye view” of activities in their own markets and beyond.
This nature of data makes the antitrust measures of the past less useful. Breaking up firms like Google into five small ones would not stop remaking themselves: in time, one of them would become great again. A rethink is required—and as a new approach starts to become apparent, two ideas stand out.
The first is that antitrust authorities need to move form the industrial age into the 21st century. When considering a merger(兼并),for example, they have traditionally used size to determine when to step in. They now need to take into account the extent of firms' data assets(资产) when assessing the impact of deals. The purchase price could also be a signal that an established company is buying a new-born threat. When this takes place, especially when a new-born company has no revenue to speak of, the regulators should raise red flags.
The second principle is to loosen the control that providers of on-line services have over data and give more to those who supply them. Companies could be forced to consumers what information they hold and how many money they make from it. Governments could order the sharing of certain kinds of data, with users' consent.
Restarting antitrust for the information age will not be easy But if governments don't wants a data economy by a few giants, they must act soon.
D
Old Problem ， New Approaches
While clean energy is increasingly used in our daily life，global warning will continue for some decades after CO2 emissions（排放）peak. So even if emission were to begin decrease today，we would still face the challenge of adapting to climate. Here I will stress some smarter and more creative examples of climate adaptation.
When it comes to adaptation，it is important to understand that climate change is a process. We are therefore not talking about adapting to a new standard，but to a constantly shifting set of conditions. This is why in part at least，the US National Climate Assessment says that:”there is no ‘one-size fit all' adaptation.” Nevertheless，there are some actions that offer much and carry little risk or cost.
Around the world people are adapting in surprising ways，especially in some poor countries，Floods have some more damaging in Bangladesh in recent decades. Mohammed Rezwan saw opportunity where others saw only disaster. His not-for-profit organization runs 100 river boats that server as floating libraries，schools，and health clinics，and are equipment with solar panels and other communication facilities. Rezwan is creating floating connectivity（连接） to replace flooded roads and highways. But he is also working at a far more fundamental level：his staff people how to make floating gardens fish ponds prevent starvation during the wet season.
Elsewhere in Asia even more astonishing actions are being taken. Chewang Nophel lives in a mountainous region in India, where he is known as the Ice Man. The loss of glaciers(冰川) there due to global warming represents an enormous threat to agriculture. Without the glaciers, water will arrive in the rivers at times when it can damage crops. Norphel's inspiration come from seeing the waste of water over winter, when it was not needed. He directed the wasted water into shallow basins where it froze, and was stored until the spring. His fields of ice supply perfectly timed irrigation(灌溉) water. Having created nine such ice reserves. Nophel calculates that he has stored about 200, 000m3 of water. Climate change is a continuing process, so Norhel's ice reserves will not last forever. Warming will overtake them. But he is providing a few years during which the farmers will, perhaps, be able to find other means of adapting.
Increasing Earth's reflectiveness can cool the planet. In southern Spain the sudden increase of greenhouses (which reflect light back to space) has changed the warming trend locally, and actually cooled the region. While Spain as a whole is heating up quickly, temperatures near the greenhouses have decreased. This example should act as an inspiration for all cities. By painting buildings white, cities may slow down the warming process.
In Peru, local farmers around a mountain with a glacier that has already fallen victim to climate change have begun painting the entire mountain peak white in the hope that the added reflectiveness will restore the life-giving ice. The outcome is still far from clear, But the World Bank has included the project on its of ‘100 ideas to save the planet”.
More ordinary forms of adaptation are happening everywhere. A friend of mine owns an area of land in western Victoria. Over five generations the land has been too wet for cropping. But during the past decade declining rainfall has allows him to plant highly profitable crops. Farmers in many countries are also adapting like this—either by growing new produce, or by growing the same things differently. This is common sense, But some suggestions for adapting are not. When the polluting industries argue that we've lost the battle to control carbon pollution and have no choice but to adapt, it's a nonsense designed to make the case for business as usual.
Human beings will continue to adapt to the changing climate in both ordinary and astonishing ways. But the most sensible form of adaptation is surely to adapt our energy systems to emit less carbon pollution. After all, if we adapt in the way, we may avoid the need to change in so many others.
Getting less sleep has become a bad habit for most American kids. According to a new survey(调查) by the National Sleep Foundation, 51% of kids aged 10 to 18 go to bed at 10 pm or later on school nights, even though they have to get up early. Last year the Foundation reported that nearly 60% of 7- to 12-year-olds said they felt tired during the day, and 15% said they had fallen asleep at school.
How much sleep you need depends a lot on your age. Babies need a lot of rest: most of them sleep about 18 hours a day! Adults need about eight hours. For most school-age children, ten hours is ideal(理想的). But the new National Sleep Foundation survey found that 35% of 10- to 12-year-olds get only seven or eight hours. And guess what almost half of the surveyed kids said they do before bedtime? Watch TV.
“More children are going to bed with TVs on, and there are more opportunities(机会) to stay awake, with more homework, the Internet and the phone,” says Dr. Mary Carskadon, a sleep researcher at Brown University Medical School. She says these activities at bedtime can get kids all excited and make it hard for them to calm down and sleep. Other experts say part of the problem is chemical. Changing levels of body chemicals called hormones not only make teenagers' bodies develop adult characteristics, but also make it hard for teenagers to fall asleep before 11 pm.
Because sleepiness is such a problem for teenagers, some school districts have decided to start high school classes later than they used to. Three years ago, schools in Edina, Minnesota, changed the start time from 7:25 am to 8:30 am. Students, parents and teachers are pleased with the results.
